Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 72571" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Tie,</p><p>Doesn't matter if one thinks they should or should not. The way I understand the contractual agreement and the law is that in fact UPS would become liable even to the point of being the last employer standing. This very scenario is in fact just the example given publically by the company itself when talking on this issue. They themselves are selling this very fear as one reason and it's a very legit reason. I'd be concerned too if I were them and I am concerned "BUT!" </p><p></p><p>Is that fair, proper, right, etc.? Doesn't matter because UPS via contracts agreed to those conditions and as such was given a voice via it's employer representatives which at this very time UPS to my understanding is one such member of the pension trustee committee. Some will say "in 1997' UPS blah, blah, blah...." but I would ask one specific question about 97'. Did at any time in 1997' UPS mention as one reason or any reason that their desire to take over pension duties for UPSers was to save them from a future collaspe of the pension fund? To my knowledge nothing of a sort was stated on this matter but the demographics suggested this very real potential as trends started showing this in the very early 80's and only continued to grow (a fact now openly admitted by all) but again 15 years latter (circa 97') nothing of this sort was suggested by UPS. Now in fairness to UPS under the payouts of pre-97' contract retirement benefits the potential nuclear meltdown may not have been as apparent but as a company who could in the future be in a liable position you would think they would know that the Teamster's were not willing to give up the pension and would look at the potential impact of CS and other plans matching or attempting to match the UPS offer, which in fact is what happened. You would think someone would ask, "what will this have on these plans future viability if such a scenario does occur?" Did UPS again get caught up in the short term gain not looking at the longterm and planning for other varibles that could come into play? I can't answer that but you can bet I've got my opinion on it!</p><p></p><p>Tie, the fact is UPS never uttered a word of concern over the pension until this whole thing blew up a couple of years ago and in fairness neither has the IBT. Now I'll be the first one to admit this thing could have been seen from a long way off and I myself totally failed to even look as I errored in trusting those in trustee oversite, both companies and IBT. As members we utterly failed in looking out for our own interests and we do stand very guilty of that and are not blameless in this whole affair IMO. What's UPS's excuse however as their vested interest goes vastly farther than mine and if taken to the extreme could threaten the company itself? Why not a word until the balloon goes up? Some UPSers on the management side say "you had your chance in 97' so live with it" and you know there is some real validity to that point but is it when looking at the harder facts? Is that opinion without it's own real risks? Reality set in when some realized the anchor to the sinking ship was also welded to their boat and now they want someone to use the cutting torch to free them. Sure I'll be glad to do that as well as many others like me but we're still waiting to hear what's in it for us if we do. We control the torch the quickest and easiest in the longrun. It's coming down to economics and whether or not the problem is as vast as it's being painted. I'm watching UPS for that answer as you can bet that is if the situation gets worse and there's no hope by other means other than the UPS IBT membership of cutting that anchor, then we might see some real offers that really could mean something. Right now if UPS can wiggle out via action by law or other legal means then they wiggle out and I'm likely no worse than if they took it over at this point. If it stays the same as now I might come out OK as in some respects that has been a little improvement in CS's position. Also could answer why the hype from up the foodchain has seemed to calm down or they could have thet legal loophole in place already. Good for them if they do and it may be 08' when it get's played. I'd likely do the same if I were them. </p><p></p><p>If UPS takes over the pensions then my prior 24 years will have to come from CS which at this point would likely collapse and then I get the same as staying the course now. In other words it's a dead draw for folks like me IMO. Sure you can slice it a little this way or that but for the most part economically it's no different. Remember for people like me with 20 plus years we'd still have to look for CS or whatever is left for those years based on the various proposals I've seen being discussed as alternatives. If however the situation does in fact get worse and worse then economics may dictate a different course or plan of action by UPS and then the cost of giving me something for those earlier years of service may become more economically advantagous than telling me to just make due as taking care of me and the others like me is far cheaper than sitting back and taking it all on the chin from CS and other collasping multi-employer funds liabilities. </p><p></p><p>Is that right or wrong? Neither, it's business baby! UPS makes decisions everyday that in some cases may work against me but it's in the best interest of the larger company. That's life and the way it goes. Well now I see the shoe possiblly on the other foot and I have to make a decision that I believe better suits my business (my family and I) and until I'm shown something of better value and like UPS decides, returns a real return on investment then I see no value at this point to go in a different direction as my loss or gain is really no different. No matter what I also have other retirement vehicles in play so I can "risk a little" so to speak. I'm like a man on death row with nothing to loose and everything to gain at this point but for UPS that's multipled 1000's fold. Yeah I agree it totally sucks but the fact is this is where we are at right now! </p><p></p><p>JMHO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 72571, member: 2189"] Tie, Doesn't matter if one thinks they should or should not. The way I understand the contractual agreement and the law is that in fact UPS would become liable even to the point of being the last employer standing. This very scenario is in fact just the example given publically by the company itself when talking on this issue. They themselves are selling this very fear as one reason and it's a very legit reason. I'd be concerned too if I were them and I am concerned "BUT!" Is that fair, proper, right, etc.? Doesn't matter because UPS via contracts agreed to those conditions and as such was given a voice via it's employer representatives which at this very time UPS to my understanding is one such member of the pension trustee committee. Some will say "in 1997' UPS blah, blah, blah...." but I would ask one specific question about 97'. Did at any time in 1997' UPS mention as one reason or any reason that their desire to take over pension duties for UPSers was to save them from a future collaspe of the pension fund? To my knowledge nothing of a sort was stated on this matter but the demographics suggested this very real potential as trends started showing this in the very early 80's and only continued to grow (a fact now openly admitted by all) but again 15 years latter (circa 97') nothing of this sort was suggested by UPS. Now in fairness to UPS under the payouts of pre-97' contract retirement benefits the potential nuclear meltdown may not have been as apparent but as a company who could in the future be in a liable position you would think they would know that the Teamster's were not willing to give up the pension and would look at the potential impact of CS and other plans matching or attempting to match the UPS offer, which in fact is what happened. You would think someone would ask, "what will this have on these plans future viability if such a scenario does occur?" Did UPS again get caught up in the short term gain not looking at the longterm and planning for other varibles that could come into play? I can't answer that but you can bet I've got my opinion on it! Tie, the fact is UPS never uttered a word of concern over the pension until this whole thing blew up a couple of years ago and in fairness neither has the IBT. Now I'll be the first one to admit this thing could have been seen from a long way off and I myself totally failed to even look as I errored in trusting those in trustee oversite, both companies and IBT. As members we utterly failed in looking out for our own interests and we do stand very guilty of that and are not blameless in this whole affair IMO. What's UPS's excuse however as their vested interest goes vastly farther than mine and if taken to the extreme could threaten the company itself? Why not a word until the balloon goes up? Some UPSers on the management side say "you had your chance in 97' so live with it" and you know there is some real validity to that point but is it when looking at the harder facts? Is that opinion without it's own real risks? Reality set in when some realized the anchor to the sinking ship was also welded to their boat and now they want someone to use the cutting torch to free them. Sure I'll be glad to do that as well as many others like me but we're still waiting to hear what's in it for us if we do. We control the torch the quickest and easiest in the longrun. It's coming down to economics and whether or not the problem is as vast as it's being painted. I'm watching UPS for that answer as you can bet that is if the situation gets worse and there's no hope by other means other than the UPS IBT membership of cutting that anchor, then we might see some real offers that really could mean something. Right now if UPS can wiggle out via action by law or other legal means then they wiggle out and I'm likely no worse than if they took it over at this point. If it stays the same as now I might come out OK as in some respects that has been a little improvement in CS's position. Also could answer why the hype from up the foodchain has seemed to calm down or they could have thet legal loophole in place already. Good for them if they do and it may be 08' when it get's played. I'd likely do the same if I were them. If UPS takes over the pensions then my prior 24 years will have to come from CS which at this point would likely collapse and then I get the same as staying the course now. In other words it's a dead draw for folks like me IMO. Sure you can slice it a little this way or that but for the most part economically it's no different. Remember for people like me with 20 plus years we'd still have to look for CS or whatever is left for those years based on the various proposals I've seen being discussed as alternatives. If however the situation does in fact get worse and worse then economics may dictate a different course or plan of action by UPS and then the cost of giving me something for those earlier years of service may become more economically advantagous than telling me to just make due as taking care of me and the others like me is far cheaper than sitting back and taking it all on the chin from CS and other collasping multi-employer funds liabilities. Is that right or wrong? Neither, it's business baby! UPS makes decisions everyday that in some cases may work against me but it's in the best interest of the larger company. That's life and the way it goes. Well now I see the shoe possiblly on the other foot and I have to make a decision that I believe better suits my business (my family and I) and until I'm shown something of better value and like UPS decides, returns a real return on investment then I see no value at this point to go in a different direction as my loss or gain is really no different. No matter what I also have other retirement vehicles in play so I can "risk a little" so to speak. I'm like a man on death row with nothing to loose and everything to gain at this point but for UPS that's multipled 1000's fold. Yeah I agree it totally sucks but the fact is this is where we are at right now! JMHO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Retirement Topics
Surrending CS Pension?
Top